Tips for winning the recycling race

The deadlines for recycling goals in nearly 20 states are fast approaching, and that means that hundreds of local governments are under pressure. By the end of next year, they will have to show the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that they have achieved recycling rates of 40 percent or higher. But they do have help. A new report by the EPA and the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Local Self-Reliance, “Cutting the Waste Stream in Half: Community Record-Setters Show How,” identifies communities that are achieving those rates and explains how they are doing it.

Researchers found more than 100 communities reporting waste reduction levels of 50 percent or higher for either their residential or total municipal solid waste stream. From that pool, they profiled the programs of 18 diverse communities; the largest is San Jose, Calif., with 873,300 residents and the smallest is Leverett, Mass., with a population of less than 2,000. Median household incomes in the profiled communities range from more than $62,000 per year to less than $16,000.

In five of the communities, the public sector designed and operates the recycling programs; in five others, the private sector oversees recycling. Some programs serve only multi-family households, while others serve a mix of single- and multi-family dwellings. While each community’s combination of demographics and program features makes it unique, six key strategies emerged from the research. The profiled cities and counties: * target a wide range of materials; * encourage/require participation; * offer recycling services to multi-family dwellings; * augment curbside collection with drop-off collection; * continuously educate the community about waste reduction; and * find strong markets for recyclable materials.

Targeting materials

All of the record-setting programs report collecting a wide range of materials. Ann Arbor, Mich., collects 30 different items atcurbside, more than is collected by any other profiled community. The city picks up heat-resistant glass, ceramics, textiles and used oil filters, as well as typical recyclables like glass, aluminum and paper.

According to the city’s recycling coordinator, Tom McMurtrie, Ann Arbor wanted to take its program a step beyond the average curbside recycling program, and expanding the number of materials it collected was one way to do that. “The response from the community has been very positive,” he says, adding that the majority of residents would be throwing away items like textiles, juice boxes and scrap metal if the materials were not collected in the curbside program.

Seven other communities collect textiles, and nine others recover juice and milk cartons. St. Paul (Ramsey County), Minn., picks up textiles and reusable household goods such as small appliances, books, hardware and tools, unbreakable kitchen goods, games and toys as part of its curbside recycling program. Susan Hubbard, recycling program manager for the St. Paul Neighborhood Energy Consortium, which manages the program, says a cost-benefit analysis showed that adding reusable materials to the city’s already-mature curbside program was the best way to increase its recycling rate.

Since paper and yard trimmings are the two most significant components of the residential waste stream, including those materials in programs is essential to achieving high waste reduction rates. The communities profiled in the report compost between 17 percent and 43 percent of their residential waste. Recovery of all grades of paper accounts for between 12 percent and 45 percent of residential materials diverted from landfills or incinerators.

Encouraging participation

To make participation as convenient as possible, communities are providing curbside collection of recyclables to all households, and they are providing it as frequently as they do trash collection. Those with the highest participation rates also provide both regular and seasonal collection of yard trimmings.

Eleven of the 18 communities with the best rates have some sort of local ordinance either requiring residents to separate their materials for recycling or banning them from setting out designated materials with their trash. In Madison, Wis., the diversion rate jumped from 18 percent to 34 percent when the city enacted an ordinance mandating businesses and residents to separate materials for composting. In 1991, when recycling program participation became mandatory, the amount of material recycled doubled again.

Madison Recycling Coordinator George Dreckmann says the mandate accounts for about 10 percent to 15 percent of the city’s 95 percent participation rate among single-family residences. “We have the ability to issue tickets [for not recycling], but we tend to issue gentle reminders instead,” he says.

When residents do set out recyclables like yard trimmings or cardboard boxes with the trash, the city leaves them on the curb. “We will leave a sticker on the material or leave information at the door,” Dreckmann says. “A foreman will usually follow up with the household when [recyclable] stuff has been left on the curb.”

Of the 12 states represented by the profiled communities, eight have statewide waste reduction goals ranging from 40 percent to 60 percent. Requirements that local jurisdictions develop plans to meet state goals were responsible for the development of most successful programs.

State landfill bans also jump-started community waste reduction programs. For example, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Wisconsin banned yard trimmings from landfill disposal. States also have banned batteries; tires; white goods; aluminum, metal and glass containers; and recyclable paper from landfills and incinerators.

Eleven of the 18 communities use some form of pay-as-you-throw fees to encourage residents to recycle. Residents either pay for each bag or tagged can set out at the curb, or they subscribe to collection that employs containers of varying capacities, paying higher feesfor larger containers. Recycling services are usually less expensive than trash services, motivating residents to put out less trash and more recyclables.

Multi-family inclusion

Profiled communities serve between 51 percent and 100 percent (with a median of 90 percent) of their total households with city-sponsored recycling programs. That means they serve multi-family dwellings, which often requires collection and education strategies that differ from those of traditional solid waste programs. In at least three communities — Ann Arbor; Crockett, Texas; and San Jose — all multi-family households receive recycling service. McMurtrie says it was an obvious choice for his community, since more than half of the city’s households are in multi-family dwellings. Multi-family building owners often contract for waste hauling and recycling services themselves. However, local governments can boost recycling efforts by: * requiring owners of multi-unit buildings to provide a minimum level of recycling services to their tenants; * providing collection service or requiring private haulers to provide it; * providing buildings with recycling containers; and * educating residents in multi-family dwellings about recycling.

Employing drop-offs

Curbside collection is generally the most effective way to maximize recycling, but drop-off collection can augment curbside programs and serve as the primary collection method in rural communities where residents haul their own trash. Drop-offs also can serve multi-family households without curbside service and can provide a central location for exchanging reusable items.

Most of the communities with high recycling rates use some form of drop-off collection to supplement curbside collection. For example, Dover, N.H., and Falls Church, Va., use drop-off sites to collect materials not included in the curbside program.

Falls Church collects aluminum foil and pie plates, scrap metal and some household batteries at its drop-off site. Dover’s drop-off site accepts tires, car batteries, textiles and empty aerosol cans. With the exceptions of Bellevue, Wash., and Falls Church, none of the communities in the report would have reached a 50 percent or higher waste reduction level without their drop-off sites.

Drop-off programs also allow cities to recover reusable items. For example, Leverett, which relies entirely on drop-off collection, has assembled a series of five sheds that serve as swap shops for clothing, kitchenware, toys, electronics, books and other reusable items. In addition to boosting the town’s waste reduction rate, Leverett’s swap shops for reusable materials have grown into a community service that residents are very proud of, says Richard Drury, the town’s solid waste administrator. “It’s good stuff cheap, and we don’t take anything that’s bad,” Drury say. “We tell them, ‘If you wouldn’t take it, don’t leave it.'” Drury has calculated that for every dollar spent on the program, the community receives a societal benefit of $11.84 in free goods.

Community education

Recycling experts agree that education and publicity are critical elements in the achievement of high recycling rates. “Education is really key to having a successful recycling program,” says Annette Mills, recycling coordinator for Falls Church. “People need to understand why it’s important to recycle and reduce waste. Education has to be continual, and you have to use every opportunity possible.”

Mills emphasizes natural resource conservation in her outreach programs. According to the EPA guide, research shows that individuals who connect recycling with the larger issues of resource conservation and environmental protection are more motivated to participate in recycling and reuse programs.

Additionally, more than most communities, Falls Church relies on a personal approach to recycling education, with more than 100 recycling block captains helping distribute information and relaying suggestions and complaints. Mills credits those block captains with the city’s 65 percent residential waste reduction rate — highest among the communities in the report.

Of course, outreach techniques vary among communities. In addition to block captains, as used in Falls Church, effective educational tools include fact sheets, newsletters, recycling guides, posters, utility or tax bill inserts, calendars, radio and newspaper ads, hotlines, web sites, public service announcements, appearances on local cable shows and booths at community events.

For cities with ethnically diverse populations, producing educational materials in more than one language can help increase understanding of and participation in recycling programs. St. Paul produces its recycling guides in English, Spanish, Hmong, Cambodian, Chinese and Russian, and many of its hotlines include messages in languages other than English. In San Jose, all outreach is done in three languages: English, Spanish and Vietnamese.

Demographics often determine the amount of money a community must spend on waste reduction educational programs, as well as the types of programs implemented. Cities with transient populations and diverse ethnic groups face the greatest challenges in securing broad participation and typically must spend more money on waste reduction education. Smaller communities, on the other hand, can rely on volunteer efforts and word-of-mouth to ensure participation in waste reduction programs.

Finding markets

No amount of education and encouragement will result in high waste reduction levels without markets for the collected materials. Consequently, identifying those markets is an important component in the programs of all 18 profiled communities. Most rely on private processors to market at least some of their recyclables; only Clifton, N.J., and Crockett market their own materials.

In each community, recovery of yard trimmings and various grades of paper are key elements in waste reduction. However, without markets for compost, mulch and mixed paper, including those materials in recycling efforts would be useless. All of the profiled communities have processed yard trimmings into compost, mulch or other soil amendments, and marketed those products successfully.

Many cities, including Chatham, N.J., Crockett and Worcester, Mass., own municipal compost sites and frequently use compost and mulch in local parks and on city property and give it away to residents. Nearly all the communities collect mixed paper and many, including Falls Church; Fitchburg, Wis.; Bellevue; Worcester; and Dover, use national companies to market it.

Reaching record-setting recycling levels does not necessarily require a large budget. In fact, many programs reduce per-household costs for solid waste handling.

For example, when Dover implemented per-bag trash fees and curbside recycling, waste reduction levels jumped from 3 percent to 52 percent, while per-household handling costs dropped from $122 to $73. Similarly, in Fitchburg, mandatory recycling and a pay-as-you-throw program have cut residential waste in half, despite 20 percent growth in the number of households. Between 1992 and 1996, the town landfilled less waste, reducing per-household handling costs from $126 to $108.

The EPA-ILSR report outlines the keys to operating cost-effective recycling programs, and it offers tips for replicating the success of the 18 profiled communities. Their stories are proof that, by adhering to a few core strategies, local governments can slash their waste streams, producing environmental and budgetary benefits.

Kivi Leroux is a Washington, D.C.-based freelance writer.